Open Sourcing as a Profit-Maximizing Strategy for Downstream Firms

References

• Alexy O, West J, Klapper H, Reitzig M (2018) Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 39(6):1704–1727.Google Scholar
• Allen RC (1983) Collective invention. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 4(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aoki M (1984) The Co-operative Game Theory of the Firm (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Aoki M (2001) Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY (2008) Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Indust. Corporate Change 17(1):155–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY (2018) Bottlenecks, modules and dynamic architectural capabilities. Teece D, Heaton S, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Dynamic Capabilities (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2006) The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Sci. 52(7):1116–1127.Link, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C, von Hippel E (2011) Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1399–1417.Link, Google Scholar
• Brandenburger AM, Stuart HT (1996) Value-based business strategies. J. Econom. Management Strategy 5(1):5–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R, Ghemawat P (2006) Dynamic mixed duopoly: A model motivated by Linux vs. Windows. Management Sci. 52(7):1072–1084.Link, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R, Llanes G (2011) Mixed source. Management Sci. 57(7):1212–1230.Link, Google Scholar
• Chandler AD Jr (1977) The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Dignan L (2015) Do server vendors have an answer for the white box trend? ZDNet (March 4), http://www.zdnet.com/article/do-server-vendors-have-an-answer-for-the-white-box-trend/.Google Scholar
• Dosi G, Nelson RR (2010) Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. Hall BH, Rosenberg N, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 51–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giarratana M, Mariani M (2013) The relationship between knowledge sourcing and fear of imitation. Strategic Management J. 35(8):1144–1163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D (1999) Vertical organization, technology flows and R&D incentives: An exploratory analysis. Mueller DC, Haid A, Weigand J, eds. Competition, Efficiency, and Welfare: Essays in Honor of Manfred Neumann (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston), 57–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Henkel J, von Hippel E (2003) Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit from freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy 32(10):1753–1769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henkel J, Schoberl S, Alexy O (2013) The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Res. Policy 43(5):879–890.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirschleifer J (1971) The private and social value of information and the reward to inventive activity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 61(4):561–574.Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG, Knudsen T, Augier M (2006) Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation, and the role of industry architectures. Res. Policy 35(8):1200–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeppesen LB, Lakhani KR (2010) Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21(5):1016–1033.Link, Google Scholar
• Kuan JW (2001) Open source software as consumer integration into production. Working paper, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford, CA. http://ssrn.com/abstract=259648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langlois RN (1986) The new institutional economics: An introductory essay. Langlois RN, ed. Economics as a Process: Essays in the New Institutional Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 1–25.Google Scholar
• Langlois RN (2002) Modularity in technology and organization. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 49(1):19–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin L (2008) Impact of user skills and network effects on the competition between open source and proprietary software. Electronic Commerce Res. Appl. 7(1):68–81.Google Scholar
• Machlup F, Penrose E (1950) The patent controversy in the nineteenth century. J. Econom. Hist. 10(1):1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacLeod C (2007) Heroes of Invention: Technology, Liberalism and British Identity, 1750–1914 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Nagle F (2018) Learning by contributing: Gaining competitive advantage through contribution to public goods. Organ. Sci. 29(4):569–587.Link, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Open Compute Project (2018a) Open Compute Project home page. Accessed April 12, 2018, http://www.opencompute.org.Google Scholar
• Open Compute Project (2018b) Tiered membership requirements and benefits policy of Open Compute Project Foundation. Accessed April 12, 2018, http://www.opencompute.org/assets/Uploads/Amended-Tiered-Membership-Policy-01302018.pdf.Google Scholar
• Penrose ET (1951) The Economics of the International Patent System (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).Google Scholar
• Pine BJ II (1993) Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Raymond ES (1999) The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary (O’Reilly Media, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. 98(5):S71–S102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salop SC, Scheffman DT (1983) Raising rivals’ costs. Amer. Econom. Rev. 73(2):267–271.Google Scholar
• Salop SC, Scheffman DT (1987) Cost-raising strategies. J. Indust. Econom. 36(1):19–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen R (2007) A strategic analysis of competition between open source and proprietary software. J. Management Inform. Systems 24(1):233–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Suh NP (1990) The Principles of Design (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15(6):285–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2006) Reflections on profiting from innovation. Res. Policy 35(8):1131–1146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tseng M, Piller F, eds. (2003) The Customer Centric Enterprise: Advances in Mass Customization and Personalization (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E (2017) Free Innovation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. 14(2):208–223.Link, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1991) Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2):269–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winter SG (2010) The replication perspective on productive knowledge. Itami H, Kusunoki K, Numagami T, Takeishi A, eds. Dynamics of Knowledge, Corporate Systems and Innovation (Springer, Berlin), 95–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woodward J (1965) Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Zhu F, Iansiti M (2012) Entry into platform-based markets. Strategic Management J. 33(1):88–106.Crossref, Google Scholar